Category Archives: RC Roman Catholicism

Is The Mass That Bad?

John Bradford:

First, the mass is a most subtle and pernicious enemy against Christ, and that double, namely, against his priesthood and against his sacrifice. His priesthood is an everlasting priesthood, and such an one as cannot go to another. But the mass utterly puts him out of place, as though he were dead for ever; and so God is forsworn which said Christ should be ‘a priest for ever,’ and Paul lieth which affirmeth Christ to live, and to be ‘on the right hand’ of the Father for us, that by him ‘we may come to the throne of grace to find mercy to help us in our need:’ for, if these be true as they be most true, the mass priests are to be put down: for, if they be ‘of the order of Aaron,’ then resume they that which Christ hath abolished; if they be ‘of the order of Melchisedec,’ then be they Christ’s. Other orders of priests I read none, save that which all Christians be, to offer up themselves to God and other spiritual sacrifices by Christ, and the order of ‘priests of Baal,’ whose successors indeed the massers be (from The Writings of John Bradford, volume 2, pp. 312-313). ​

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/is-the-mass-really-all-that-bad.93420/, Comment 1

When I Do It, Christ Must Obey

Adoration du Saint Sacrement à l'Eglise du Sacré-Coeur de Monaco

“I never invite an angel down from heaven to hear mass here. The is not the place for angels. The only person in heaven I ever ask to come down here is Jesus Christ, and Him I command to come down. He has to come when I bid him. I took bread in my fingers this morning and said: ‘This is the body and blood of Jesus Christ’, and He had to come down. This is one of the things He must do. He must come down every time I say mass at my bidding….I do it in obedience, reverence, homage, and adoration, but I do it, and when I do it, Christ must obey.”

(Source: Roman Catholic Priest David S. Phelan, The Western Watchman (St. Louis: Western Watchman Publishing Company), June 10, 1915.)

Source: https://www.worldslastchance.com/end-time-prophecy/appalling-papal-proclamations-straight-from-the-harlots-mouth.html

As if by an Enchanter’s Wand

Peasant art in Sweden, Lapland and Iceland (1910) (14593636387)“Mr. Kohl, a fair and very impartial writer, at least, upon Ireland, and who is often quoted by the great agitator, O’Connell, says,—in passing from that part of the country, where the majority of the inhabitants profess the Roman Catholic religion to that in which the great bulk of the population are Protestants or Presbyterians,—”On the other side of these miserable hills, whose inhabitants are years before they can afford to get the holes mended in their potatoe kettles, (the most important article of furniture in an Irish cabin,) the territory of Leinster and that of Munster begins. The coach rattled over the boundary line, and all at once we seemed to have entered a new world. I am not in the slightest degree exaggerating when I say, that everything was as suddenly changed as if by an enchanter’s wand. The dirty cabins by the road side were succeeded by neat, pretty cottages; well cultivated fields and shady trees met the eye on every side. At first I could scarcely believe my own eyes, and thought the change must be merely local, caused by particular management of that particular state, but the improvement lasted, and continued to show me that I was among a totally different people, the Scottish settlers, and the industrious Presbyterians.””

~William Hogan, Popery! As it Was and as it Is, Crusade Against the Albigenses

Tradition is More Clear and Safe

Hottinger Volksblatt 1878 057 Bild1

“Like two sacred rivers flowing from paradise, the Bible and divine tradition contain the word of God, the precious gems of revealed truths. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still of the two, tradition is to us more clear and safe.”

(Source: Catholic Belief, Joseph Faa di Bruno, p. 45.)

Source: https://www.worldslastchance.com/end-time-prophecy/appalling-papal-proclamations-straight-from-the-harlots-mouth.html

Reject the Holy Scriptures

Frontispiece-chained-bible-q38-2080x2446“If we must choose between the Holy Scriptures of God, and the old errors of the church, we should reject the former.”

(Source: Johann Faber (defender of the Papacy) cited in History of The Reformation, by J. H. Merle d’Aubigne, book 11, Ch. 5, Par. 9.y J. H. Merle d’Aubigne, book 11, Ch. 5, Par. 9.)

Source: https://www.worldslastchance.com/end-time-prophecy/appalling-papal-proclamations-straight-from-the-harlots-mouth.html

Entirely Independent of Holy Scripture

Bibleplacedkkk“The doctrines of the Catholic Church are entirely independent of Holy Scripture.”

(Source: Familiar Explanation of Catholic Doctrine, Rev. M. Mullers, p.151.)

Source: https://www.worldslastchance.com/end-time-prophecy/appalling-papal-proclamations-straight-from-the-harlots-mouth.html

Of Indulgence and Scapulas

A Peasant Girl buying an IndulgenceThe Pope of Rome and the Propaganda, taking into consideration the savage ignorance of Americans, deemed it prudent to substitute some other name for the usual name indulgences, and something else for the usual document specifying the nature of the indulgence which was given to pious sinners in “the New World:” they thought it possible that Yankees might have the curiosity to read the written indulgences. This, said they in their wisdom, must be prevented; and here is a case where our doctrine of pious frauds comes beautifully into play. After singing the “Veni Creator spiritus”—as usual in such cases—they resolved that indulgences should be in future called Scapulas, and thus piously enable all Roman Catholic priests and bishops to swear on the Holy Evangelists that no indulgences were ever sold in the United States. This is what holy mother calls pious fraud.

~William Hogan, Popery! As it Was and as it Is, Massacre of the Huguenots

C.S. Lewis: A Bridge to Rome

June 20, 2015
By J. Saunders

“It is largely due to Lewis, an Anglican, that I converted to the Catholic Church…”1
–Mark Brumley, President of RC Ignatius Press

“Lewis has been credited (or blamed) in recent years with setting numerous people on the road to Rome. Such Catholic converts have included many of the serious scholars and disciples of Lewis, some of whom knew him before he died…”2
–R.A. Benthall, Professor of Literature, Ave Maria College

Statue of C.S. Lewis, BelfastClive Staples Lewis was born in Belfast, N. Ireland in 1898 to Protestant parents and, for most of his adult life, was a Tutor at Oxford and a lecturer of Medieval and Renaissance literature at Cambridge. He wrote more than thirty books, and his most popular accomplishments include The Chronicles of Narnia, The Screwtape Letters, and Mere Christianity. At age 32, through the encouragement of his devout Roman Catholic friend and colleague, J.R.R. Tolkien (The Lord of the Rings), and after reading The Everlasting Man by Roman Catholic convert, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity from atheism and returned to his Anglican roots where he remained until his death in 1963. Although Lewis never converted to Roman Catholicism, inwardly he leaned towards certain of its dogmas so that his colleagues considered him to be an Anglo-Catholic.

It is obvious, by the support given C.S. Lewis today by some conservative Christians, great ignorance exists about his life and beliefs. Therefore, we have included several pertinent quotations, individually cited, gleaned from both Lewis’s own writings, and those of his official biographers and personal friends, in order to enlighten and awaken. For, it is an indisputable fact that to those who seek reconciliation with Rome, C.S. Lewis is a bridge.

“Certainly the path he had taken to ‘mere Christianity’ was very largely the Roman road along which guides such as Chesterton and Tolkien, and Patmore and Dante and Newman had led him.”3 Patmore and Dante were Roman Catholic writers. Newman was an Anglican priest who converted to Catholicism and subsequently became a Cardinal.

“After more than two decades in the [RC] Church, I have met or learned of scores of far more illustrious Catholic converts who likewise list Lewis on their spiritual resumes.”4

“When I converted [to Catholicism] in my teens, it was largely due to reading Lewis’ Screwtape Letters…G.K. Chesterton and Lewis sort of guided me into the Catholic Church, even though Lewis wasn’t a Catholic.”5

In 1952, C.S. Lewis published his theological work Mere Christianity, which originally began in 1942 as a three-part BBC radio broadcast. As the title suggests, Lewis focused on the mere or common ground he felt existed in Christianity and tried to restate a theology without controversy. The result is a generic Christianity that suits anyone anywhere who can in any way relate to God. Lewis bent over backwards trying to find common ground with all denominations, omitting any doctrine that may be deemed offensive. For this reason, Tolkien disparagingly labelled his friend “Everyman’s Theologian.” Even Mormons find his writings inoffensive.

“He [Lewis] is widely quoted from tried-and-true defenders of Mormon orthodoxy. It just shows the extraordinary acceptability and the usefulness of C.S. Lewis because, of course, most of what he says is perfectly acceptable to Mormons.” 6

Mere Christianity has long been regarded a classic exposition of the Christian faith, yet oddly enough, not one Bible verse is quoted in the first half of the book and only three partial verses in the latter half with no Bible references in the entire book. How can we present Christianity without its foundation – the Word of God?

Mere Christianity is a compilation of four essays, transcripts that were sent to four clergymen to gauge their reaction with regard to its common ground.

“I tried to guard against this [putting forth his Anglican beliefs] by sending the original script of what is now Book II to four clergymen (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic) and asking for their criticism. The Methodist thought I had not said enough about Faith, and the Roman Catholic thought I had gone rather too far about the comparative unimportance of theories in explanation of the Atonement. Otherwise all five of us were agreed.”7

“You will not learn from me whether you ought to become an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic. This omission is intentional. There is no mystery about my position …the best service I could do was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times.”8

Regarding reunification, Lewis said that he “did at least succeed in presenting an agreed, or common, or central, or mere Christianity” and congratulated himself in having helped to bridge the “chasm” between Protestant denominations and Roman Catholicism.

“If I have not directly helped the cause of reunion, I have perhaps made it clear why we ought to be reunited.”9

“The time is always ripe for reunion. Divisions between Christians are a sin and a scandal and Christians ought at all times to be making contributions toward reunion…the result is that letters of agreement reach me from what are ordinarily regarded as the most different kinds of Christians; for instance, I get letters from Jesuits, monks, nuns, also from Quakers and Welsh Dissenters, and so on.”10

In his quest for unity, Lewis had to muddy the waters of doctrinal distinction. For instance, in chapter 19 of his Letters to Malcolm, Lewis suggests that the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation [i.e., the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ], which takes place in the Mass, might be just as valid as the Protestant view of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial.

“There are three things that spread the Christ life to us: baptism, belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by different names – Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord’s Supper …anyone who professes to teach you Christian doctrine will, in fact, tell you to use all three, and that is enough for our present purpose.”11

“Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object to your senses.”12

Equating Mass [“Blessed Sacrament”] and the Lord’s Supper is not a light matter. In the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church, Article 28 describes transubstantiation accordingly: “Transubstantiation…is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture.” Article 31 describes the sacrifices of the Mass as “blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” Godly men and women – among whom were notable Anglicans – were burned at the stake for refusing to accept this Roman Catholic Sacrament. Lewis’s casual equation is an affront to the many who gave their lives defending the Truth of God.

Joseph Pearce, the highly acclaimed RC biographer, takes Lewis’s position on the Mass one step further in his book C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church, and concludes that Lewis believed that the sacraments play a part in salvation. “Immediately, therefore, Lewis is excluding the Protestant doctrine of sola fide [faith alone] from the ‘merely Christian’” (Pearce 127). The Bible doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone without works cannot be undervalued in its supremacy. For Lewis to deviate here and espouse the sacraments in the work of salvation is a grave matter.

In 1945, Lewis published The Great Divorce, an allegory dealing with another Roman Catholic doctrine: Purgatory. To be fair, however, he did not claim to accept the full RC doctrine of Purgatory, but rather his own aberration:

“Death should not deprive people of a second chance…Lewis frankly admitted believing in Purgatory. To him it was a place for souls already saved but in need of purifying – purging. Lewis felt that our souls demand Purgatory. Who would want to enter heaven foul and dirty? Lewis thought of the dentist’s chair. ‘I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am coming round, a voice will say, ‘Rinse your mouth out with this.’ This will be Purgatory.”13

“Lewis could never accept the Roman Catholic practice of praying to the saints…however, he emphatically believed in praying for the dead. He believed that his prayers could somehow bless them. One must remember that Lewis believed in a temporary purgatory for the blessed dead as a kind of entryway to heaven.”14

“Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, ‘It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy?’ Should we not reply, ‘With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.’ ‘It may hurt, you know’ – ‘Even so, sir.’”15
“A further strong and enduring Anglo-Catholic influence on Lewis was his longstanding friendship with Sister Penelope of the Convent of the Community of Saint Mary the Virgin.” 16

“As Lewis approached the end of his life there is little doubt that he was continuing the ascent towards the ‘High Church’ principles of Anglo-Catholicism. There is little doubt that the ascent was caused by his assent to those truly Catholic principles that represented not mere but more Christianity (Pearce 143). Believing that he was dying, his Anglo-Catholic friends arranged for an Anglican clergyman to administer extreme unction, or the last rites, the sacrament of anointing with oil when a patient is in extremis…this can be taken as Lewis’s acceptance of the seventh and final sacrament of the Catholic Church.”17

Walter Hooper, Lewis’s personal friend and literary executor to the Lewis estate, was an Anglican clergyman until his conversion to Catholicism in 1988.18 When asked in 1994 whether Lewis would have become Catholic if he had lived longer, Hooper replied, “I think so.” Hooper added that more and more Catholics are buying his books.19

“Lewis, it seems, has been abandoned by his own church but embraced by Catholics and evangelical Protestants…Since Lewis insisted on the sacraments and Creed as being necessary parts of ‘mere Christianity’, it is clear that Protestants have to reach beyond their own beliefs if they are to embrace fully the beliefs of Lewis.”20

Contrary to the opinion of the uninformed, the Roman Catholic Church and her doctrines remain unchanged. If you did not know that, you need to read her official documents such as The

Council of Trent or The New York Catechism. These and other sources are readily available on the Internet. You will read things like this:

“Whosoever shall affirm that men are justified solely by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ…let him be accursed.”21

[Regarding the “immaculate” or “sinless” conception of Mary]
“The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin through baptism.”22

“Taken up to heaven she [Mary] did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us gifts of eternal salvation…Therefore, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”23

These and many other RC beliefs are the antitheses of the Word of God. Therefore, as Lewis downplayed the Mass and other Catholic doctrines in his quest for unity, he not only failed to warn Catholics of their perilous position, he rather did the cause of Truth much harm.

A final unrelated but yet disturbing fact is that Lewis did not believe in the total inerrancy of the Bible.

“Although Lewis never doubted the historicity of an account because the account was miraculous, he believed that Jonah’s whale [sic], Noah’s ark, and Job’s boils were probably inspired stories rather than factual history.”24

“The Old Testament contains fabulous elements. As to the fabulous element in the Old Testament, I very much doubt if you would be wise to chuck it out. Jonah and the Whale [sic], Noah and his Ark, are fabulous; but the court history of King David is probably as reliable as the court history of Louis XIV.”25

So why is Lewis so revered today by Evangelicals?

Considering Lewis’s evident Anglo-Catholic position and the current trend of tolerance among Evangelicals for Roman Catholicism – especially since the signing of the document Evangelicals and Catholics Together [ECT] in 1994 – it is not surprising that many Evangelicals today revere him as a foremost Christian thinker and philosopher. In an article commemorating the 100th anniversary of Lewis’ birth, J.I. Packer called him “our patron saint.” Christianity Today [Neo-Evangelical magazine] also reported that Lewis “has come to be the Aquinas, the Augustine, and the Aesop of contemporary Evangelicalism” (Sept. 7, 1998) and the “20th century’s greatest Christian apologist” (April 23, 2001). Focus on the Family made a similar claim in their November 2001 issue.

In 1993, Christianity Today suggested the reason for Lewis’s popularity among Evangelicals: “Lewis’s concentration on the main doctrines of the church [including the Roman Catholic church] coincided with evangelicals’ concern to avoid ecclesiastical separation.” Nicky Gumbel continues this ploy in his Alpha Course, where he quotes Lewis liberally. Given the theological climate of today, it is sad but not surprising.

What is surprising is that sincere, Bible-believing Christians can claim an affinity with C.S. Lewis, whose doctrine and associations are so evidently compromised. There can be only one explanation: there exists among Christians an alarming ignorance of basic Bible doctrine. Lewis himself admitted his own lack of knowledge in doctrine: “I should have been out of my depth in such waters: more in need of help myself than able to help others.”26 Also, in the preface of The Problem of Pain, Lewis confessed how ill-qualified he was to attempt this theological work: “If any real theologian reads these pages he will very easily see that they are the work of a layman and an amateur…any theologian will see easily enough what, and how little, I have read.”27 I wonder if Lewis would not cringe at his exaltation were he alive today.

Even from the early 1960’s, men like the late Dr. D. Martin Lloyd-Jones warned that Lewis had a defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement (Christianity Today, Dec. 20, 1963). Unfortunately, the Lewis-loyalty of some Christians overrides their willingness to admit his defective theology. Meanwhile, a whole generation has been infected, and the damage is great.

“Protestants who tend to equate Christianity with their Protestant version of it will find
in Lewis no ally. Which brings us back to Lewis and Catholicism. It is a curious phenomenon, demanding explanation, that so many people influenced by Lewis…have embraced more than ‘mere Christianity’; they have become Catholics, crediting Lewis with helping them to cross the threshold.”28

In conclusion, since the “mere” message of C.S. Lewis is able to confuse people to the extent that they actually convert to Catholicism, that in itself would suggest an urgent need for born-again Christians to wake up to the tragic reality that the Lewis message is hindering Roman Catholics from coming to Christ alone for salvation [John 14:6Rom. 6:23Eph. 2:8]. Even some fundamentalists are treading the same precarious ground, and the evident shift is nowhere seen more clearly than in the Christian seminaries and bookstores of our nations. Today, the market is full of writers following in the footsteps of C.S. Lewis. If Christians continue to set aside the solid foundation of the Word of God for the shifting sands of the philosophies of men, how will Roman Catholics and other needy people be rescued without the right lifeline?

Every Christian book and author needs to be measured against the yardstick of Scripture, for no matter how popular or convincing they may seem, “if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”29 “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”30

C.H. Spurgeon wisely said, “Those who compromise with Christ’s enemies may be reckoned with them.”31 We cannot accept the peripherals when the fundamentals are in error. May God grant us discernment in these confused times.

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth…”32

J. Saunders
Whitefield Christian Collegiate Institute
Toronto, Ontario
June 2008

“Berean Beacon” Ministry Webpage: http://www.bereanbeacon.org

Permission is given by the author to copy this article if it is done in its entirety without any changes.

Permission is also given post this article in its entirety on Internet WebPages.

Works Cited
Brumley, Mark. The Relevance and Challenge of C.S. Lewis. http://www.ignatiusinsight.com, November 29, 2005.
Gormley, Beatrice. C.S. Lewis: Christian and Storyteller. Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.
Hooper, Walter. C.S. Lewis: Readings for Meditation and Reflection. San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers Inc., 1992.
Janes, Burton. Beyond Aslan: Essays on C.S. Lewis. Gainsville: Bridge-Logos, 2006.
Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1982.
Lewis, C.S. Surprised by Joy. London: Collins, 1955.
Lewis, C.S. The Grand Miracle. New York: The Random House Publishing Group, 1970.
Lewis, C.S. The Great Divorce. San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers Inc. 2000.
Lewis, C.S. The Weight of Glory. Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973.
Lindskoog, Kathryn. C.S. Lewis: Mere Christian. 4th Edition. Chicago: Cornerstone Press, 1997.
Pearce, Joseph. C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003.
Purtill, Richard. C.S. Lewis’s Case for Christianity: An Interview with Richard Purtill by Gord Wilson, http://www.ignatiusinsight.com, 2005.

1 M.Brumley, The Relevance and Challenge of C.S. Lewis, (www.ignatiusinsight.com), Nov. 29, 2005.
2 R.A. Benthall, Ave Maria College, Michigan quoted in C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church by Joseph Pearce, Ignatius Press, 2003, p.xv.
3 J. Pearce, C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), p.41.
4 M. Brumley, The Relevance and Challenge of C.S. Lewis, (www.ignatiusinsight.com), Nov. 29, 2005.
5 R. Purtill, C.S. Lewis’ Case for the Christian Faith, (www.ignatusinsight.com), 2005.
6 D. LeBlanc. Mere Mormonism.(Christianity Today, Feb. 7, 2000).
7 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1982), p. 11.

8 Ibid., pp.6-7.
9 Ibid., p.12.
10 C.S. Lewis, The Grand Miracle, and Other Selected Essays on Theology and Ethics from God in the Dock, (Random House, 1970), p. 35.
11 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1982), pp. 108-09.
12 C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory (London: HarperCollins, 1977), pp.109.

13 K. Lindskoog, C.S. Lewis: Mere Christian, 4th ed., (Chicago: Cornerstone Press, 1997), p. 105.
14 Ibid., p.135 (based on Lewis’s Letters to Malcolm, London: Collins, p. 15, 107-110).
15 C.S. Lewis, Letters of Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer. (New York: Harcourt, 1963), pp.108-9.
16 J. Pearce, C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), p. 132.
17 Ibid., p.147.
18 Ibid., p.167.
19 Ibid., p.167.
20 Ibid., p.168.

21 Council of Trent, Section 6(www.enwikipedia.org/wiki/Council ).
22 Catholic Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org).
23 Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 969 (www.vatican.va/archive/catechism.htm ).
24 K.Lindskoog, C.S. Lewis: Mere Christian, 4th ed., (Chicago: Cornerstone Press, 1997), p. 199.
25 C.S. Lewis, The Grand Miracle, (New York: Random House, 1970), p. 32.

26 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1982), p.7.
27 C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (San Francisco: HarperCollins,1996), p.xii.
28 M.Brumley, The Relevance and Challenge of C.S. Lewis, (www.ignatiusinsight.com), Nov. 29, 2005.

29 Isaiah 8:20
30 Galatians 1:9
31 C.H. Spurgeon, Faith’s Checkbook (Chicago: Moody Press), June 12 entry.
32 II Timothy 4:3-4

Link to original: http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles-on-christian-living/2015/6/20/cs-lewis-a-bridge-to-rome

What Roman Catholics Really Believe: Are Jews and Muslims Christians?

Via The Still Man, republished under the following permission:

You may copy any content on this website, create derivative work from it, and re-publish it for non-commercial purposes, provided you include an overt attribution to me, the author, and the re-publication must itself be under the terms of this license or similar.


Grace and peace, Saints.

In our last article, we discussed the fact that the Roman Catholic Ecumenical Movement is gaining momentum with every passing day. In the article, we showed you an advertisement for a concert here in Munich featuring a symbol composed of a cross, a six-pointed star, and a crescent moon. The symbol, as well as the music, was dedicated to “The One God.”

In the article, we explained that contrary to popular belief, the cross is not the symbol for Bible-based Christianity, but for Roman Catholicism, as the cross was used by Constantine The Great, founder of the Roman Catholic Church, as a symbol for the pagan sun god, which Constantine worshipped as Sol Invictus. The six-pointed star, the so-called Star of David, is widely regarded as the symbol for Judaism, but the Bible states that those Jews who fell into apostasy used a star to represent Nimrod, whom they worshipped as Moloch and Rempham; and Semiramis, whom they worshipped as Chiun (See Amos 5:26 and Acts 7:43). The crescent moon has come to be known as the primary symbol for Islam, but the crescent moon (as well as the full moon) is also a symbol for many goddesses, including the Egyptian Isis, the Phoenician goddess Ashtoreth, the Roman goddess Diana, The goddess Diana of the Ephesians (Turkey), and the Roman Catholic Virgin Mary.

We further explained that Mystery Babylon, as the worship of Nimrod and Semiramis is known in the Bible (Revelation 17:5), uses symbols to represent the deified couple, and that among these symbols are the cross, star, and moon. The Bible calls Mystery Bible the “mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.” Roman Catholicism uses all three symbols: the cross, the moon, and the six-pointed star, and bills itself the “mother of all churches.”

By these associations we hoped to illustrate that Roman Catholicism is in fact, Mystery Babylon, and the symbol formed by the amalgamation of the symbols for Roman Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism is proof positive that the three religions are united in their worship of the One God, which is none other than The Image of the Beast (Revelation 13): the goddess Semiramis, which the Bible calls The Abomination of Desolation.

Today I will provide proof that this is not conjecture. A Practical Catholic Dictionary gives this definition of “The Heathen”:

“Those who are not Christians, Jews, or Mohammedans [Muslims]. Under Christians are included both Catholics and non-Catholics. Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans worship the One God and so cannot be called heathen” (p. 109). [Brackets and boldface mine]

Here is the original:

[visit The Still Man’s site to see this image]

Definition of “Heathen” from A Practical Catholic Dictionary, p. 109.

Can you believe that? The Roman Catholic Church considers Muslims and Jews Christians! Because Roman Catholics don’t consider Bible-believing Christians to be Christians, but calls us Protestants and heretics, then what Rome is really saying is that Muslims and Jews are also Roman Catholics! I’m not surprised by this, as I have been saying this for years, and even wrote about it in articles such as House of the Virgin Mary, Ephesus and The Roman Catholic Church, Zionism, Stars, and Seashells. But this time, it’s not me saying it: Rome is saying it herself.

The problem, of course, is that neither Muslims nor Jews worship the Lord Jesus Christ, who Roman Catholics claim to worship. If Roman Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism worship the One God–whom Catholics claim is Jesus–yet Muslims and Jews do not worship the Lord Jesus–who Catholics claim to worship–then, for Catholics, Muslims, and Jews to have One God in common, it could only mean that the One God of Roman Catholicism is not the Lord Jesus Christ. Who then, is the One God? Answer: the only “god” that Roman Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism have in common: Semiramis, known in Catholicism as the Virgin Mary, in Islam as Mother Mary, and in Judaism as Miriam. It is no coincidence, therefore, that Roman Catholics and Muslims share a joint shrine at Ephesus, Turkey; and that the Dome of the Rock, Islam’s second holiest shrine, stands where the Jewish temple once stood.

The One God of Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism is The Woman, Semiramis, who was worshipped in Mesopotamia as Ishtar “The Woman,” in Rome as Domina or Despoina “The Lady” (The Two Babylons, p. 103), and mentioned in the Bible as the “Virgin Queen of Babylon” (Isaiah 47:1), the “Lady of Kingdoms” (Isaiah 47:5), and the “Queen of Heaven” (Jeremiah 44:17-19). Could it be merely a coincidence that the Roman Catholic Virgin Mary is known in every country in the world as Our Lady and the Queen of Heaven?  If there are too many coincidences, there are no coincidences.

If you are a Bible-believing Christian, you should be very encouraged to know that as terrible as all this sounds, it is actually a fulfillment of biblical prophecy, as the Bible tells us that “all the world shall worship him [the Pope]” (Revelation 13:8). Before the Lord Jesus opened my eyes, I used to wonder how Muslims, known for their fanatical devotion to Allah and the Prophet Muhammad, or the Jews, who pride themselves as being the chosen of God and the children of Abraham, would ever rally around the Pope.  I don’t wonder anymore. The Virgin Mary, the “One God,” is the key.

The One World Church is not coming; it’s already here.

Be encouraged and look up, for your redemption draweth nigh.

The Still Man

Beast Watch: Pope Francis Once Again Admits That The Roman Catholic Church is Mystery Babylon

Via The Still Man, under this permission (original images not included):

You may copy any content on this website, create derivative work from it, and re-publish it for non-commercial purposes, provided you include an overt attribution to me, the author, and the re-publication must itself be under the terms of this license or similar.


“And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication” (Revelation 17:4).

Grace and peace, Saints.

Many of you may be aware that last October, Pope Francis went on an ecumenical journey to Sweden. During an in-flight press conference held aboard the papal jet, the pontiff fielded a variety of questions covering subjects from ecumenism to secularization. Responding to a question from a Swedish journalist regarding the possibility of women being allowed in the Catholic priesthood, Pope Francis made a cryptic, yet very revealing statement wherein he once again admitted that the Roman Catholic religion is, in fact, Mystery Babylon, the worship of Nimrod and Semiramis.

Click here for the full text of the press conference.

Following is the complete dialogue:

Journalist: “Good morning. The Sweden that hosted this important ecumenical encounter has a woman as head of it’s own Church. What do you think: is it realistic to think of women priests also in the Catholic Church in the coming decades? And if not, why are Catholic priests afraid of competition?”

Pope Francis: “Reading the history a bit in the area where we were, I saw that there was a queen who was widowed three times. And I said: but, this woman is strong, and they told me: Swedish women are very strong, very good. And because of this some Swedish man looks for a woman from another nationality…I don’t know if it’s true, but…on the ordination of women in the Catholic Church, the final word is clear, it was said by St. John Paul II and this remains. On competition, I don’t know…”

Journalist: “Never ever?”

Pope Francis: “If we read well the declaration made by St. John Paul II, it goes along this line, yes…But women can do so many things better than men, even in the dogmatic field. To clarify (to perhaps give some clarity, not to say only a reference to a document):

INTERJECTION. Now pay close attention, as the Pope reveals the true nature of Roman Catholicism: that rather than Christianity, Catholicism is really Mystery Babylon, the worship of Nimrod and Semiramis. The greatest emphasis, however, is on Semiramis.

Pope Francis: “In Catholic ecclesiology there are two dimensions to think about: the Petrine dimension (which is from the Apostle Peter and the Apostolic College, which is the pastoral activity of the bishops), as well as the Marian dimension (which is the feminine dimension of the Church); and this I have said more than [once]. I ask myself: who is most important in theology and in the mystic of the Church: the apostles or Mary on the day of Pentecost? It’s Mary! The Church is a woman! It’s “la Chiesa” (in Italian), not “il Chiesa.” It’s “la Chiesa”; and the Church is the spouse of Christ. It’s a spousal mystery.

“And in light of this mystery you will understand the reason for these two dimensions: the Petrine dimension, which is the bishops, and the Marian dimension, which is the maternity of the Church, but in the most profound sense. A Church doesn’t exist without this feminine dimension, because she herself is feminine.” [Boldface and brackets mine.]

If you have ears to hear, then you know that Pope Francis has made some extremely revealing admissions here.

First, it is important to first understand that if the Roman Catholic Church were truly the Bride of Christ, then there would be no mystery, as the bride and groom would already be identified. That there remains a “spousal mystery” is the first clue that the Roman Catholic Church is not the Bride of Christ and Jesus Christ is not the groom of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Pope’s emphasis on the Petrine and Marian dimensions being peculiar to Roman Catholicism is also very important. In biblical Christianity, there are no Petrine or Marian hemispheres, as “Christ is all and in all” (Colossians 3:11). If there were two dimensions to biblical Christianity, then they would have to be the Mosaic Dimension, which is salvation by works, and the Christian Dimension, which is salvation through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ:

“For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17)).

Regarding the Church, there is no spousal mystery. Jesus is the groom and the Church is his bride. There are two great mysteries in the Bible:

  1. the mystery of godliness.
  2. the mystery of iniquity.

The mystery of godliness, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, has already been revealed through Scripture and is therefore no longer a mystery:

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (1 Timothy 3:16).

The mystery to which Pope Francis alludes, therefore, can only be the Mystery of Iniquity, which just happens to be a spousal mystery. The Bible calls this mystery Mystery Babylon:

“And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

“And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

“And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus…” (Revelation 17:5).

When Pope Francis calls Catholicism a “spousal mystery,” he is admitting that Roman Catholicism is Mystery Babylon, which is the worship of Nimrod and Semiramis. The Petrine and Marian dimensions of Catholic theology are therefore emblematic of the deified couple: St. Peter is a symbol for Nimrod, and the Virgin Mary is a symbol for Semiramis.

It is important to understand that Pope Francis’ use of the words mystery and mystic is a signal that he is speaking in occult or symbolic language. Mystery Babylon uses symbols to conceal the fact that its principle objects of worship are Nimrod and Semiramis. There are two types of symbols: esoteric and exoteric. An esoteric symbol is closer to the truth, while an exoteric symbol is farther from the truth. The Pope has already provided us with the two esoteric symbols for Nimrod and Semiramis in the Petrine and Marian dimensions of Catholic ecclesiology. Any cryptic references the Pope makes to people or things are merely symbolic references to the deified couple.

When the Pope therefore says “in light of this mystery you will understand….the two dimensions,” what he is really saying is “Once you understand that Roman Catholicism is Mystery Babylon, then you will know that everything in Roman Catholicism—from the dead Jesus, to the cross, to the Virgin Mary, to the seven sacraments—is symbolic of Nimrod and Semiramis, and you will have the key to deciphering all my cryptic references, including and especially my reference to the Roman Catholic Church as a ‘spousal mystery.’”

Pope Francis said that he has mentioned the feminine aspect of the Roman Catholic Church in the past, and one such incident may be a homily he gave in 2013, wherein Pope Francis described the Catholic Church as “a widow in search of her spouse,” an obvious reference to the Egyptian legend of Isis and Osiris, who are none other than Nimrod and Semiramis.

Pope Francis’ remarks also proves that the Virgin Mary is not the biblical Mary, the mother of Jesus. The Roman Catholic Church claims its popes are the spiritual descendants of the Apostles. Yet, the Pope claims that the Virgin Mary is the most important person in Catholic theology. The problem with this statement is that according to the Bible, Jesus’ mother Mary was present with the Apostles and the other disciples of the Lord Jesus, in the days from our Lord’s crucifixion up to Pentecost, but she played no major role. Peter was the one who was prominent:

“These [the Apostles] all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren. And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples…” (Acts 1:14).

In fact, the Bible records that on the day of Pentecost, the Apostle Peter preached a sermon that resulted in three thousand people being converted:

“And when the day of Pentecost was come…Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem…hearken unto my words…” (Acts 2:14).

Peter then went on to preach Jesus to the crowd, ending with:

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36).

What was the result of Peter’s preaching?

“Then they gladly received his word and were baptized: and that same day were added unto them about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41).

Jesus’ mother Mary is not even mentioned in connection with Pentecost, yet Pope Francis claims that Mary was the most important person on that day!

Why is all this important? You may ask. I’ll tell you. The Roman Catholic Church bills itself as the “mother of all churches,” and claims that it’s popes are the spiritual descendants of the Apostles and that the Apostle Peter was the first pope. This, they believe, gives the Catholic Church the divine right to rule all other churches, including the true Christian Church, and makes the Pope the spiritual head of all churches, including the Christian Church. But, by Pope Francis’ own words, Mary is the most important person in Catholic theology, even more important than the Apostle Peter. If I were a sincere Roman Catholic, I would find this problematic, because, in case you hadn’t noticed, the Virgin Mary is a statue.

Why does the Catholic Church exalt the Virgin Mary above the Apostle Peter, if they consider Peter the first pope? Because, by Pope Francis’ own words, the Catholic Church could not exist without the Virgin Mary. Pope Francis tells us:

“[T]he Marian dimension…is the maternity of the Church, but in the most profound sense. A Church doesn’t exist without this feminine dimension, because she herself is feminine.”

Here, the Pope is again using symbolic language; so, if you interpret “Marian dimension” as the Virgin Mary and “most profound” as esoteric, then you will understand that Pope Francis is telling us that the Catholic Church could not exist without the Virgin Mary because, in it’s most profound (esoteric) sense, the Virgin Mary is Semiramis.

The Pope is saying that the Marian (Semiramis) dimension is more important than the Petrine (Nimrod) dimension, because the Church is Semiramis and Semiramis is the Church. This is why the Roman Catholic Church calls itself “Mother Church.” The Catholic Church is Semiramis, who was worshipped as Cebele, the Goddess Mother and wife of Nimrod. The preeminence of Semiramis over Nimrod is depicted in the Egyptian Mysteries of Isis and Osiris, where we read that “Osiris or Horus, is the doctrine, while Isis is the Church.”

Only when one considers Roman Catholicism from the perspective of the ancient mysteries and understands that the Roman Catholic St. Peter and the Virgin Mary are really esoteric symbols for Nimrod and Semiramis, can one understand why the Catholic Church claims their popes are descended from St. Peter and the Apostles, when the popes are not and have never been anything like the Apostle Peter and the Apostles. The Roman Catholic popes are really reincarnations of Nimrod, while the Virgin Mary is really Semiramis.

Pope Francis once again proves that Roman Catholicism is not Christianity, but “Mystery Babylon The Great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth” (Revelation 17:5).

“He who hath an ear, let him hear.”

Be encouraged and look up, for your redemption draweth nigh.

The Still Man